Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1013299.pdf

path to the resolution of cases. Alvarez v. Banach, 153 Wn.2d 834, 838, 109 P.3d

12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Crossroads Management, LLC v. Ridgway et al., No. 101329-9

402 (2005) (“[I]f we were to require only substantial compliance with the filing

requirements, we would be subverting the legislative intent of mandatory arbitration,

which is to reduce congestion in the courts and delays in civil cases.”).

The Lewises have not persuasively argued why the COVID-19 pandemic is

uniquely different from the other sympathetic circumstances in which courts have

required strict compliance. Pierce County required electronic filing even prior to the

COVID-19 pandemic, and the Lewises do not assert that they had trouble with the

e-filing system. PIERCE COUNTY SUPER. CT. LOC. GEN. R. 30 (requiring attorneys to

electronically file all documents with the clerk’s office). Nor do they claim that

COVID-19 restrictions prevented them from signing. Indeed, emergency rules were

in place to ensure the judiciary could continue to operate while minimizing the

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, our emergency orders permitted

electronic signatures. Am. Third Revised & Extended Ord. Regarding Ct.

Operations, In re Statewide Response by Washington State Courts to the COVID-19

Public Health Emergency, No. 25700-B-626, at 12-13 (Wash. May 29, 2020),

https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Orders/A

MENDED%20Third%20Extended%20and%20Revised%20SCT%20Order%2005

2920.pdf [https://perma.cc/MF47-TY8W]. The Lewises could have provided their

signature electronically, avoiding any potential exposure to COVID-19, but they did